There was an interesting interview on the Breakfast show on TV this morning between Paul Henry and the PM. Paul put it to Helen that Labour promised in 1999 that no more than 5% of New Zealanders would be paying the top tax rate (I think it was 39c in the dollar?); yet 11% of the country are paying this top rate now.
Helen said something like - oh, that's because New Zealanders have prospered under a Labour Government.
My response to that is surely it's not that hard to adjust the tax rates accordingly so that still only 5% are paying the top tax rate? After all, they don't have any problem in adjusting the salaries of MPs to match inflation. But no, if they did adjust the tax rate to fulfil their promise from 1999 then Labour wouldn't be filling it's coffers as much.
Seems like the more money you make, the more Labour expects you to give them of your hard-earned cash.
[edit] transcription of video online now -
Paul: [...] the promise in 1999 that only 5% of taxpayers would be paying that top tax bracket, 39c in the dollar; it turns out now, as a result of questions that ACT answered, that 11% of New Zealand employees are paying tax in the top tax bracket.
Helen: Well, there's two points there Paul: firstly, incomes have risen under a Labour Government, and people are better off. Secondly, the pledge in 1999 was when we brought that in, there were going to be 5% of people affected, and there were. Of course, it's obvious if the threshold isn't adjusted, over time, other people go over that $60,000 threshold. That's one of the reasons that Dr Cullen has said that in next years budget he will be addressing the issue of tax levels.
Paul: right, but is that soon enough though? Because if we go back to 1999, the statement was that only 5% of people were going to be affected.
Helen: that's right; 1999 when it came in. So there has been an income growth, a good income growth in the period since. Now, everyone's better off and they get a salary rise, but of course more people have now passed that threshold [...]
Paul: So will that threshold be lifted?
Helen: that's something you'll have to wait and see [...]
In other words, Helen's saying the promise they made in 1999 was only good for 1999?
How many other of Labour's promises have a time-limit?
Helen said something like - oh, that's because New Zealanders have prospered under a Labour Government.
My response to that is surely it's not that hard to adjust the tax rates accordingly so that still only 5% are paying the top tax rate? After all, they don't have any problem in adjusting the salaries of MPs to match inflation. But no, if they did adjust the tax rate to fulfil their promise from 1999 then Labour wouldn't be filling it's coffers as much.
Seems like the more money you make, the more Labour expects you to give them of your hard-earned cash.
[edit] transcription of video online now -
Paul: [...] the promise in 1999 that only 5% of taxpayers would be paying that top tax bracket, 39c in the dollar; it turns out now, as a result of questions that ACT answered, that 11% of New Zealand employees are paying tax in the top tax bracket.
Helen: Well, there's two points there Paul: firstly, incomes have risen under a Labour Government, and people are better off. Secondly, the pledge in 1999 was when we brought that in, there were going to be 5% of people affected, and there were. Of course, it's obvious if the threshold isn't adjusted, over time, other people go over that $60,000 threshold. That's one of the reasons that Dr Cullen has said that in next years budget he will be addressing the issue of tax levels.
Paul: right, but is that soon enough though? Because if we go back to 1999, the statement was that only 5% of people were going to be affected.
Helen: that's right; 1999 when it came in. So there has been an income growth, a good income growth in the period since. Now, everyone's better off and they get a salary rise, but of course more people have now passed that threshold [...]
Paul: So will that threshold be lifted?
Helen: that's something you'll have to wait and see [...]
In other words, Helen's saying the promise they made in 1999 was only good for 1999?
How many other of Labour's promises have a time-limit?
This empty promise was further abused with Dr Cullen's infamous "chewing gum budget", where after 8 years of Labour rule, they finally agreed to adjust the tax threshold slightly - only to cancel the offer recently.
ReplyDeleteAdd to this the NEW taxes (such as taxes on investments) and relatively high increases in rates (another kind of tax) and now new "carbon taxes", the resistance to raising the income tax thresholds seem even more outrageous.
Apart from the obvious spin she is putting on the use-by date, her point does not also recognise the degree to which inflation may have actually moved some people backwards.
ReplyDeleteI am liking Paul Henry more and more. His gentle probing of Clarkula this morning did nothing to diminish my affection for him. We have watched and listened to the slurping as Holmes and various breakfast tv hosts have given the beast a rimming over the years that would rival the very worst our teutonic cousins pay money for. When tvnz start asking the hard questions there may be hope for us.
ReplyDeleteTop rate at 60 large, holy nelly, is that per person or combined income?
ReplyDelete60K a year is not much considering what cars and houses go for these days. Bastard socialists..